Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025-8
Unpacking the network dynamics of online political discussions: Stochastic actor-oriented modeling with political/sociopsychological/linguistic factors
The underlying mechanisms of online political discussions which may involve power dynamics have seldom been explored through a dynamic network approach, even though discussions themselves are inherently relational and dynamic processes. It remains unclear how discussions are shaped over time between egos/alters with different political/sociopsychological/linguistic attributes as well as by the existing discussion ties surrounding them. Based on a stochastic actor-oriented modeling constructed from pre-survey/virtual discussion/post-survey data, we found some evidence that, in the politically heterogeneous context, shared political ideology, alter’s political tolerance level, and the extent of negative/strong/assertive language used by alter are associated with the likelihood of discussion tie creation/maintenance. In the homogeneous context, the extent to which ego perceives alter as politically knowledgeable and personally likable was clearly associated with ego’s tendency to create or maintain discussion ties with alter over time. This study uncovers alter/dyad-centered variables that are critical, but have been overlooked, for communication research.
AkhtarOPauneskuDTormalaZL (2013) Weak> strong: the ironic effect of argument strength on supportive advocacy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin39(9): 1214–1226.
2.
AzhariAS (2018) Speech acts of classroom interaction. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture4(2): 24–45.
3.
BailCAArgyleLPBrownTW, et al. (2018) Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115(37): 9216–9221.
4.
BarabásiALAlbertR (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science286(5439): 509–512.
5.
BarfarA (2019) Cognitive and affective responses to political disinformation in Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior101: 173–179.
6.
BeckerCB (1986) Reasons for the lack of argumentation and debate in the Far East. International Journal of Intercultural Relations10(1): 75–92.
7.
BergerJMilkmanKL (2012) What makes online content viral?Journal of Marketing Research49(2): 192–205.
8.
BrundidgeJ (2010) Encountering “difference” in the contemporary public sphere: the contribution of the Internet to the heterogeneity of political discussion networks. Journal of Communication60: 680–700.
9.
ChoJShahDVMcLeodJM, et al. (2009) Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: advancing an O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects. Communication Theory19: 66–88.
10.
ChoiS (2014) Flow, diversity, form, and influence of political talk in social-media-based public forums. Human Communication Research40(2): 209–237.
11.
ChoiS (2015) The two-step flow of communication in Twitter-based public forums. Social Science Computer Review33(6): 696–711.
12.
CinelliMBrugnoliESchmidtAL, et al. (2020) Selective exposure shapes the Facebook news diet. PLoS ONE15(3): e0229129.
13.
CraigTYBlankenshipKL (2011) Language and persuasion: linguistic extremity influences message processing and behavioral intentions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology30(3): 290–310.
14.
DahlgrenP (2005) The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication22(2): 147–162.
15.
DjafarovaERushworthC (2017) Exploring the credibility of online celebrities’ Instagram profiles in influencing the purchase decisions of young female users. Computers in Human Behavior68: 1–7.
16.
DurkinK (2008) The adaptation of East Asian masters students to western norms of critical thinking and argumentation in the UK. Intercultural Education19(1): 15–27.
17.
EvelandWPJr. (2004) The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: the roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication21: 177–193.
18.
FengY (2016) Are you connected? Evaluating information cascades in online discussion about the #RaceTogether campaign. Computers in Human Behavior54: 43–53.
19.
FestingerL (1954) A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations7(2): 117–140.
20.
ForsythDR (2014) Introduction to group dynamics. In: Group Dynamics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, pp. 1–32.
21.
GarrettRK (2009) Politically motivated reinforcement seeking: reframing the selective exposure debate. Journal of Communication59(4): 676–699.
22.
Gil de ZúñigaHJungNValenzuelaS (2012) Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication17(3): 319–336.
23.
GildeZúñigaHValenzuelaSWeeksBE (2016) Motivations for political discussion: antecedents and consequences on civic engagement. Human Communication Research42(4): 533–552.
24.
GrahamT (2015) Everyday political talk in the Internet-based public sphere. In: ColemanSFreelonD (eds) Handbook of Digital Politics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 247–263.
25.
GrahamTWrightS (2014) Discursive equality and everyday talk online: the impact of “superparticipants.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication19(3): 625–642.
26.
HamiltonMAHunterJE (1998) The effect of language intensity on receiver evaluations of message, source, and topic. In: AllenMPreissRW (eds) Persuasion: Advances through Meta-Analysis. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, pp. 99–138.
27.
HarlowS (2012) Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online Guatemalan justice movement that moved offline. New Media & Society14(2): 225–243.
28.
HimelboimIGleaveESmithM (2009) Discussion catalysts in online political discussions: content importers and conversation starters. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14(4): 771–789.
29.
HimelboimIMcCreerySSmithM (2013) Birds of a feather tweet together: integrating network and content analyses to examine cross-ideology exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication18(2): 4060.
30.
HoggMA (2001) A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review5(3): 184–200.
31.
HusseinALHusseinMM (2020) Pragma-linguistic analysis of assertion in May’s and Trump’s inaugural addresses. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation3(2): 78–88.
32.
JacobsonSMyungEJohnsonSL (2016) Open media or echo chamber: the use of links in audience discussions on the Facebook pages of partisan news organizations. Information, Communication and Society19(7): 875–889.
33.
JangHKimMShinH (2013) KOSAC: a full-fledged Korean sentiment analysis corpus. In:Proceedings of the 27th Pacific Asia conference on language, information, and computation (PACLIC 27), pp. 366–373.
34.
Jing-SchmidtZ (2007) Negativity bias in language: a cognitive affective model of emotive intersifiers. Cognitive Linguistics18(3): 417–443.
35.
KimJKimEJ (2008) Theorizing dialogic deliberation: everyday political talk as communicative action and dialogue. Communication Theory18(1): 51–70.
36.
KobayashiTIkedaKIMiyataK (2006) Social capital online: collective use of the Internet and reciprocity as lubricants of democracy. Information, Community & Society9(5): 582–611.
37.
LeFebvreRKArmstrongC (2018) Grievance-based social movement mobilization in the #Ferguson Twitter storm. New Media & Society20(1): 8–28.
38.
LeihsNRoeder-TzellosM (2015) Political communication research in the Middle East. In MazzoleniG (ed.) The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1–8.
39.
LittlemoreJSobrinoPPHoughtonD, et al. (2018) What makes a good metaphor? A cross-cultural study of computer-generated metaphor appreciation. Metaphor and Symbol33(2): 101–122.
40.
LordRGDevaderCLAlligerGM (1986) A metaanalysis of the relation between personality-traits and leadership perceptions: an application of validity generalization procedures. Journal of Applied Psychology71(3): 402–410.
41.
LuYLeeJK (2019) Stumbling upon the other side: incidental learning of counter-attitudinal political information on Facebook. New Media & Society21(1): 248–265.
42.
McClurgSD (2003) Social networks and political participation: the role of social interaction in explaining political participation. Political Research Quarterly56: 449–464.
43.
McKennaKYAGreenAS (2002) Virtual group dynamics. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice6(1): 116–127.
44.
MarchalN (2022) “Be nice or leave me alone”: an intergroup perspective on affective polarization in online political discussions. Communication Research49(3): 376–398.
45.
MarinoS (2015) Making space, making place: digital togetherness and the redefinition of migrant identities online. Social Media+ Society1(2): 1–9.
46.
MinSJWohnDY (2018) All the news that you don’t like: cross-cutting exposure and political participation in the age of social media. Computers in Human Behavior83: 24–31.
47.
MinozziWSongHLazerDM, et al. (2020) The incidental pundit: who talks politics with whom, and why?American Journal of Political Science64(1): 135–151.
48.
MongePRContractorNS (2003) Theories of Communication Networks. New York: Oxford University Press.
49.
MutzDC (2002) Cross-cutting social networks: testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review96(1): 111–126.
50.
NelsonJLWebsterJG (2017) The myth of partisan selective exposure: a portrait of the online political news audience. Social Media+ Society3(3): 1–13.
51.
Noelle-NeumannE (1974) The spiral of silence a theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication24(2): 43–51.
52.
OhanianR (1990) Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising19(3): 39–52.
53.
PriceVCappellaJN (2002) Online deliberation and its influence: the electronic dialogue project in campaign 2000. IT & Society1(1): 303–329.
54.
Quan-HaaseAWellmanBWitteJC, et al. (2002) Capitalizing on the net: social contact, civic engagement, and sense of community. In WellmanBHaythornthwaiteC (eds) The Internet in Everyday Life. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp. 291–324.
55.
RheeJWKimE (2006) Effects of online deliberation on political discussion efficacy. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies50(3): 393–423.
56.
RheeJWKimEM (2009) Deliberation on the net: lessons from a field experiment. In DaviesTGangadharanSP (eds) Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 223–232.
57.
RipleyRMSnijdersTABodaZ, et al. (2023) Manual for RSIENA. Oxford: University of Oxford, Department of Statistics, Nuffield College.
58.
ShahDVChoJEvelandWP, et al. (2005) Information and expression in a digital age. Communication Research32: 531–565.
59.
ShahDVMcLeodDMRojasH, et al. (2017) Revising the communication mediation model for a new political communication ecology. Human Communication Research43(4): 491–504.
60.
ShinHKimMJangH, et al. (2012) Annotation scheme for constructing sentiment corpus in Korean. In: Proceedings of the 26th Pacific Asia conference on language, information, and computation, Bali, Indonesia, 7-10 November, 2012 pp. 181–190. Depok, Indonesia: Faculty of Computer Science, Universitas Indonesia.
61.
SnijdersTA (1996) Stochastic actor-oriented models for network change. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 21(1–2):149–172.
62.
SongHChoJBenefieldGA (2020) The dynamics of message selection in online political discussion forums: self-segregation or diverse exposure?Communication Research47(1): 125–152.
63.
StieglitzSDang-XuanL (2012) Political communication and influence through microblogging: an empirical analysis of sentiment in Twitter messages and retweet behavior. In: 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, 4–7 January, 2012 pp. 3500–3509. New York: IEEE.
64.
StokkomBV (2005) Deliberative group dynamics: power, status and affect in interactive policy making. Policy & Politics33(3): 387–409.
65.
StroudNJ (2008) Media use and political predispositions: revisiting the concept of selective exposure. Political Behavior30(3): 341–366.
TajfelH (1982) Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology33(1): 1–39.
68.
TajfelHTurnerJ (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: HatchMJSchultzM (eds) Organizational Identity: A Reader. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 56–65.
69.
ThorsonKWangL (2020) Committed participation or flashes of action? Mobilizing public attention to climate on Twitter, 2011–2015. Environmental Communication14(3): 347–363.
70.
TóthFMiheljSŠtětkaV, et al. (2023) A media repertoires approach to selective exposure: news consumption and political polarization in Eastern Europe. The International Journal of Press/Politics28(4), 884–908.
71.
WesterwickAJohnsonBKKnobloch-WesterwickS (2017) Confirmation biases in selective exposure to political online information: source bias vs. content bias. Communication Monographs84(3): 343–364.
72.
WojcieszakMEMutzD (2009) Online groups and political discourse. Journal of Communication59: 40–56.
73.
YamamotoMNahS (2018) Mobile information seeking and political participation: a differential gains approach with offline and online discussion attributes. New Media & Society20(5): 2070–2090.
74.
YangSLeeMShinJ (2019) Gender gap by news media use and Internet discussion efficacy and its effects to political participation on online. Korean Journal of Communication Theories15(1): 57–90.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
